In the run-up to the traditional February recess, and in the midst of the decisions in the heat of the new constituent process, the National Congress will face from next March a complex scenario, where both the ruling party and the opposition must deal with the fragmentation of their forces, a panorama that has been exposed with the recent impossibility of the right to align itself behind the constitutional accusations against Giorgio Jackson and Marcela Ríos, in addition to the official difficulties of forming a single list to compete in the elections to choose the members of the Constitutional Council.
In this context, on the right they assume the challenge of aligning themselves and overcoming the differences, recently exposed between Chile Vamos and the Republican Party, to avoid official empowerment in Congress, understanding the need for the Government to move forward as quickly as possible some of its most emblematic reforms. In this regard, the deputy and head of the National Renewal (RN) bloc, Andrés Longton, recognizes that the greatest difficulty will be to make two different rights coexist, each with its own nuances, but that they could eventually align with the purpose of shaping reform projects, whether in tax, social security, etc.
Likewise, the parliamentarian gave an account of the expectations of his sector in relation to the investigative commission for the granting of presidential pardons, and ruled out that the objective of this instance is finally to project a constitutional accusation against President Boric. In addition, and in relation to the election of the members of the Committee of Experts of the constituent process, Longton faced criticism about a designation where a political logic would eventually have prevailed over a technical vision, and assured that from the opposition they hope that the process that has just begun will distance itself as much as possible from the previous failed attempt to elaborate a new Constitution.
What are your feelings after the failure of the constitutional accusation against former Minister Marcela Ríos? Do you think that the decision of the Republican Party deepens the differences between two right-wingers that today make up a fragmented opposition?
We are satisfied from the point of view that those of us who led that accusation, which was Chile Vamos, ended up approving it, very convinced of the legal and political elements behind an absolutely wrong decision (…). In that sense, we believe that the distancing of Republicans has to do, first, with the fact that they are not part of our coalition and second, because they have been in this dynamic of making decisions more influenced by giving political signals to differentiate themselves from us, or rightly marking a different course of how to be opposition, which we believe is not correct. because in the end what has to be imposed is the force of the facts, and in this case (accusation against Ríos) we were sure that there was an important degree of certainty regarding the legal and political elements. But Republicans ended up voting together with the Frente Amplio and the Communist Party, and thus endorsing the decision to deliver these pardons, which we believe was clearly unconstitutional, illegal, and that also politically produced a very great damage to our society, and that finally seems to be that it is with the complicity of Republicans, that in this eagerness to give political signals, They end up leaving aside the most important thing, which is the defense of the victims and Chilean families.
In this regard, what are your expectations in relation to the investigative commission that you promoted about the granting of pardons? Do you think that this process could have an impact on a possible constitutional accusation against President Gabriel Boric?
The process should take place over the next few months, which has a limited period of 60 days for the investigative commission, and by virtue of that we will take definitions. Obviously, what the President of the Republic for us is very delicate, because we believe that presidents have to finish their mandate, we do not believe in destabilizing countries or in following examples of other countries that unfortunately have generated a very large destabilization, polarization and an institutional rupture without return. Therefore, without prejudice to the fact that the gravity of the actions determines whether or not the presidents of the Republic are accused, that always has to be taken very seriously and not with the lightness with which it was taken by the ruling party, when they were opposition and accused former President Piñera.
In relation to the role that the opposition has played in this first year of President Boric’s administration, do you assume that it was a mistake to withdraw from the security table regarding the delivery of pardons last December?
We believe that the table is in Congress, in the commissions, with a table and all the chairs available for us to discuss there, in the heart of democracy, the different initiatives to move them forward. We have told Minister Tohá that we are going to approve the projects that give greater security to Chileans, if they are in line with what is required by the citizens. We have had a year where, at least in the Security Committee of the House, we have not had projects that go along those lines from the Government and we see that with great concern, because this eventual table would generate a double discussion, a discussion there and another later in Congress. And the truth is that we want to shorten those times, Chileans want to have greater security, and we must give that certainty in the shortest possible range of time. So, if we continue to discuss whether or not we sit at a certain table, I think the most efficient thing to avoid delays is for Congress, where laws are finally approved, to be our great table to be able to democratically debate the different issues.
Regarding the fragmentation of the right in Congress and the isolation of the Republican Party, how difficult do you think it will be from now on for you to coordinate to be a coordinated opposition to the government’s reforms?
Obviously, we have to define matter by subject, that is, tax reform, pension reform, etc. I believe that the harmony often occurs naturally because there are coincidences from the point of view of the damage that some reforms may generate, but there may also be differences as to what are the elements that must be improved from those, so that we can, for example, get a pension reform that makes sense with what is happening in the country. regarding the freedom to choose, that the funds belong to the workers, and so on. The truth is that in some elements we can have some nuances, but finally this is going to opt reform for reform.
I understand that there has to be a unity that gives a clear signal regarding the strength that the opposition is going to have, but we must also be realistic that we have differences regarding how to address certain issues, but without prejudice to them, I believe that we are going to have greater cohesion in those matters related to major structural reforms. where I think we share many elements, which will make us vote more aligned, beyond the fact that there are differences and that these can be marked in the respective votes. We understand that this can be a problem, but it is part of living with two rights that are different, with respect to the country we want to build, especially in some areas where we will necessarily have some nuances.
As for the constituent process that has just begun, what do you think of the critical voices against the political agreement that opened the way to this process and of the questions about the names proposed by the parties to compose the Committee of Experts? What was that designation process like? Did a political logic prevail in this appointment?
In a representative democracy, you want to be elected by the citizens are those who make this type of decisions, regarding what they consider is convenient for the country, in this case, from the constitutional point of view (…). It was a participatory process, where the different deputies made proposals, and those proposals were heard in the caucus and finally there was a voting process, where finally people were elected who we believe meet the ideal requirements to integrate the Committee of Experts, because they bring together elements from the point of view of experience in the public and private world. In addition to having a very outstanding professional career behind. And when you talk about people who participated in the public world, it’s hard not to turn to people who were in previous governments, because generally the best people are those who are recruited by governments. And so, it was necessary to incorporate people who had been in the public world, because precisely the capacity for dialogue and agreement is embodied in those who have had the opportunity to be able to be in the political world, and that goes beyond Experience in academia or professional experience in the private world, which has to do with political capacity, so we also choose people of that profile, complemented by people with a very outstanding career in the private or academic world.
Do you consider it an advantage over the ruling party that Chile Vamos managed to align itself in a single list to face the elections of constitutional advisors? Do you think that the fact that government forces compete on separate lists could eventually benefit the right electorally?
What happens is that Chile Vamos has a common framework already defined many years ago. We have been living together, not without difficulties, but there is a complicity and shared sensitivities regarding what we want as a country, without prejudice to having some differences, but we have known how to live with them. Therefore, there is a greater consolidation, with respect to what can happen with two coalitions that have a different view from the left, which added to the deficient work on the part of the Government that is also expressed by the evident citizen discontent, makes them (Democratic Socialism) make a decision that has more to do with recovering that identity they lost in the previous period. where they were constantly pulled by the most radical left, folding to it, which left them very invisible, and this is the moment, I think, so that they can recover that electorate and make a difference with those ideas of the most radical left – represented by Apruebo Dignidad – that I believe do a lot of damage to Chile.
Finally, what are the expectations of your sector for the new constituent process and how is the right preparing to, unlike the previous process, be an actor with greater prominence in the discussion and elaboration of the new Magna Carta?
We hope that it moves as far as possible from the previous process and that there are no radicalized positions lacking rationality that lead us to sketches of a new Constitution with refoundational characteristics, and for that there are certain elements that guarantee that through the bases, and we believe that when there is experience behind and when there is clear and finished knowledge regarding the subjects, And there are also bases that guarantee that there are certain elements that are part of our constitutional history, that gives it sobriety and moderation, and most importantly, it gives peace of mind. We want to convey peace of mind to the citizens that we are going to have a sensible Constitution, which does not intend for the country to start from scratch, much less, but to nourish us with what our history has been, but also to generate those changes that are representative of what our country needs, but that ultimately is not representative of any particular sector.
Follow us on
 and opposition division: “We are going to have greater cohesion in matters with major structural reforms”){kind=link}